by Phillip » Tue 22 Jan 2013 8:21 pm
Just a quickie on dating David. Baillie, in one of his books or articles, made the claim that David and Solomon should be dated later in time as he was convinced that roughly 480 years was significant as a number of years between disasters. He had the Exodus event coinciding, I think, don't quote me on this, at 1628-5BC, and therefore the reign of David should be dated at 1150BC - which is where he dates the end of LB, end of dyn 19 etc., and all this on the basis that in the story of David we have comets, plagues, famine and drought, and banishment to a far away land (or region of the sky). What I find interesting here is that if these dates are adjusted by around 150 years the low growth tree ring event comes out around 1000BC, where David is traditionally dated. The suggestion is that somewhere along the line the tree ring dates have been made to conform with the system of calibration accepted by the consensus. Why was one calibration system better than various others that were explored? We don't know but we could hazard a guess that it was the one calibration that didn't upset the Egyptologists and it was important to get them onboard if the science was going to have lift-off following some dubious results leading up to the calibrations. In retrospect, it may be that no calibration was required and all the problems revolved around C14 plateaus, caused by increased amounts of solar radiation from big solar flares at various times in the past, and possibly as a result of reduced solar radiation as a result of opaque skies caused by dust in the stratosphere (or something like that). The science involved here is all up for grabs it seems to me as it is increasingly becoming clear that the Sun plays a role in terrestrial climate in ways unimagined 30 years ago (but even then there were lone voices in the wilderness).
When we come to Biblical textual criticism the consensus appears to be that there was somebody called David and he founded a dynasty in Judah, but Saul was perhaps a king in the territory of the northern kingdom, which might let in David Rohl's theory concerning Labaya. In other words, the two figures have been gelled together in the Biblical narrative representing a joined up kingdom and cult of Yahweh, probably after the Asssyrian conquest of Samaria when large numbers of refugees from the north ended up in Judah, otherwise the backward part of Palestine, and the most infertile. It was the addition of the Shephalah that made Judah of Hezekiah so important and when that was lost they had to rely on other factors, such as the caravan trade from southern Arabia (collecting dues in transit etc)(Finkelstein). From this you can see that Saul could have lived long before David. In Biblical chronology there is the umbilical cord of Samuel - but is this a device to gell them together? While it may not be so it must also be considered as a possibility rather than dismissed out of hand. We don't know. In other words, Labaya as Saul is firmly dated to the Amarna age (in Rohl's scheme) but that doesn't mean David necessarily has to be dated any earlier than late dynasty 19 or early dynasty 20. At the same time we should also note that Habiru were active not only in the Amarna period but in the dynasty 20 period too so even Saul could be located fairly late which would of course spoil Rohl's chronological revision. I'm not sure how Barry sees David and Solomon without reading it up - I've got his CD saved on my computer so all I have to do is read it (so might get back on this).
Having said all that and I recently came across the fact that the cult of Baal Saphon, from N Syria (and recorded in texts from Ugarit) was transferred by Phoenicians to the coastal zone of Egypt, in the proximity of the Sea of Reeds. Now, in the time of Jeremiah there were Jews and Phoenicians living on the eastern arm of the Nile delta and the cult site of Baal Saphon would have been well known to them as it was associated with the only hill for miles around, a pin prick of 300 feet high, about the same height as one of the hills in the Chilterns where I live. This hill occurs on a narrow strip of land seperating the Mediterranean from the Sea of Reeds (a marshy area that caused problems to Persian and Greek armies alike). If you go to Exodus 14 you will find the Israelites fled from Egypt by way of the Sea of Reeds, but more importantly, via Baal Zephon, which can only be Baal Saphon. The big question here is when did a site that was associated by the Egyptians with the clash between Horus and Seth, become associated with a Phoenician god. Logic says it happened when large numbers of Phoencians involved in trade across the bottom end of the Mediterranean settled there - but when did this happen. It couldn't have been as early as the Exodus event could it? I'll pose a question for others to pick up, such as Daphne and Barry. If the inclusion of Baal Zephon in the Exodus account reflects the political situation in the 6th and 5th centuries BC how much else in the Exodus account has such a late origin - and in the Biblical narrative as a whole. I know people don't like to talk about this and Alan gets rather agitated when the Biblical text is criticised in any kind of way, so it is best to keep this to the forum. Having said all that I have also read that Baal Saphon had a temple at Ugarit and the Egyptians donated a statue of the god made of sandstone from the desert and with an Egyptian inscription inscribed on said statue. There may also have been a temple of Baal Saphon at Memphis - not sure if this is true however. This indicates Baal Saphon/Zephon had a much older pedigree in Egypt (in orthodox chronology). All this could have happened at any point in Egyptian dynastic history as Egypt had close links with Byblos and presumably other Phoenician cities all the way back to the Old Kingdom period. However, the statue from Ugarit is associated with the LB period, and not to the remoter past. It therefore falls within the revised period of history being discussed on your email thread - so where does Baal Zephon fit into any of the revised schemes?